Considering the stories of gendercide coming out of India right now and the rape and murder of the young woman by six evil men, it might be a good time to take another look at this article about aborting “Ugly black babies”. Whether we select blacks, girls or gay babies for extermination in the womb, it’s all social engineering…

Meet abortion doctor Ron Virmani of Charlotte, North Carolina, recorded in the above video saying he is lessening the burden to taxpayers by aborting ‘ugly black babies’. In context the doctor is saying that all black babies are ugly, and that there are economic benefits to society by controlling the breeding of undesirable races… like negros – especially those bothersome negros with darker, black skin colour.

This racist attitude from an abortionist isn’t surprising at all, considering that the origins of Planned Parenthood go back to Margaret Sanger and the ‘Negro Project’. Sanger was a big fan of compulsory sterilization and birth licensing (as China does) for the lesser races.

Even today Planned Parenthood of America still accepts donations with the condition that the money be specifically used to abort black babies. And when that ‘abort only black babies’ money heads to the Caribbean, BLP candidate George Griffith and his Family Planning Association say ‘Thank yee, Massa!”

Pure Genocide: American black babies are aborted at 3 times the national rate

“Abortion is the number-one killer of blacks in America… We’re losing our people at the rate of 1,452 a day. That’s just pure genocide. There’s no other word for it. [Sanger’s] influence and the whole mindset that Planned Parenthood has brought into the black community … say it’s okay to destroy your people. We bought into the lie; we bought into the propaganda.”

“When I travel around the country … I can only think of one abortion clinic [I’ve seen] in a predominantly white neighborhood. The majority of clinics are in black neighborhoods.”

One that got away from George Griffith & the Barbados Family Planning Association

Planned Parenthood, a racist organisation

“When an organization has a history of racism, when its literature is openly racist, when its goals are self-consciously racial, and when its programs invariably revolve around race, it doesn’t take an expert to realize that the organization is indeed racist.”

I heard nothing of the kind. You see how things can be so misunderstood and misjudged? Can you not see how this video and added verbiage were made to aggravate the whole US debate on abortion? Abortion is not just about black people, women of all races get abortions. This video is obviuosly made by the anti-abortionists to distort the views, and when they contrive to say that someone is talking ‘out of the blue’ about ugly back babies, it is to add fuel to the fire, in the name of those who want to kill abortion doctors, while women are striving to survive as best they can. Come on! .

This issue is not about the days of Hitler or anything about racial cleansing, it is merely a way for a woman, of any race, creed or background to be able to deal with a pregnancy that is the result of rape, illness, financial or some mental or emotional reason. Barbados does not have the same social issues as America, so be careful how you jump to judge what is coming from that country. Let us try to be compassionate to all women, all mothers, all people and stop the ugly judgements. We need love, and compassion. Give women a chance to tell everyone what it feels like.

Again, I will remind everyone that the American mentality of having a child out of wedlock is different and may I say, more difficult in the US than it is here. Just be careful when judging or reporting on this issue, that is all I ask. This video can make you angry if you let it, or you can move away from it and see the bigger picture. Thank You. What really amazed me is how one of the men at the door said something about how the babies will grow up to kill people in Colorado. What???

Any woman – white or black – should have access to a medically safe abortion if she is not ready to have a child. In the barbaric old days – only whites could afford a safe abortion. Now back women have the option of choosing an abortion. The decision to have an abortion is made by the woman – not the doctor – not the government – only by the pregnant woman. Adoption is not an alternative to abortion. It is the woman’s choice decision whether to give her child up for adoption. Statistics show that very few women who give birth give up their babies – less than 3% of white unmarried women and less than 2% of black unmarried women.

Several aspects need to be looked at in this horrific story. First, though not foremost, is the fact that this doctor is from the Indian subcontinent where, as in China, female foetuses and newborns, are routinely killed, where a male offspring is preferred. Recently in the UK, qualified doctors (interestingly mostly Asian) have been covertly filmed by a newspaper, recorded offering abortion on the basis of gender, illegal in the UK. Several of these “doctors” have been since prosecuted and struck-off as a result of the newspaper investigation.

Secondly, we have to wonder who requests this abortion of the “ugly black babies”? Who can judge the “ugliness” or “blackness” of a child until it is born anyway? Therefore we must be looking at a white/lighter skinned woman and/or her family deciding in advance that this child should not be born.

Thirdly, who has planned this pregnancy in the first case? Obviously it must have been as a result of simply love, casual sex or rape; the father of the child was not chosen, this child did not fit into the scheme of things in one way or another.

Why would that be the case? Someone had to go and ask for that abortion in order to have it performed on the basis of colour. Who was that and why?

I’m not anti-abortion but I am against people being coerced into having an abortion on the base of race or gender. I’m fuming over this.

Okeba, I agree with everything you say, about the anti-abortion lobby etc., yet you must accept that there is the big issue of colour, especially in Asian families where a daughter who suddenly produced a black child, especially out of wedlock, might risk her own life as an “honour killing”, let alone that of her unborn child’s. If you think about what I mentioned above about gender abortions, it extrapolates.

Certain cultural groups (I hate to waste that word culture on them) feel they have total control over the females in their society, deciding whom they will breed with, at the girl’s peril and that of her unborn child or even newborn. Their default button spells “kill them”. This goes beyond the right-to-life argument, though very much part of it. There ARE qualified doctors performing race and gender abortions. That’s what should be addressed right now.

@Okeba, it’s easy to tell who is saying what because of Dr. Virmani’s strong Indian accent. Also his words are subtitled in black.

Dr. Virmani is the one who is arguing that by aborting unwanted babies he will stop them growing up to kill people like the killer in Colorado.

With his question of “who will adopt those ugly black babies” Dr. Virmani is not responding to mothers’ requests to abort babies because they are going to be ugly, he is stating his own personal values about skin colour and beauty: that all black babies are ugly and therefore unadoptable.

Dr. Virmani got caught fair and square on video tape just telling it like he sees it.

He aborts babies to engineer society, and he thinks black babies are ugly and therefore his prime targets.

BFP, please put a larger version of this video here so people can read the subtitles. What the doctor says is quite shocking.

Here is what the doctor said, taken from the subtitles, and me listening to what he says:

“Don’t put it on the taxpayers, Okay? Don’t put it on the taxpayers, Okay?

I don’t wish to pay for the baby with my money.

No, no I’m not profiting. I as a tax payer do not wish to pay for those babies to be born and brought up; and kill those people in Colorado.

Go ahead and pay for them. Let me see you adopt one of those ugly black babies.

Yeah, so go ahead, adopt those babies. Okay? Take them off the tax payers money. Okay?”

You quote somebody called Rev. Johnny M. Hunter thus: “We’re losing our people at the rate of 1,452 a day. That’s just pure genocide. There’s no other word for it.”

Truth be told, there is another word for it. Indeed, there are lots of other words for it. There are whole sentences and paragraphs for it. What it absolutely isn’t is genocide.

This is a delicate subject, of course, and many people are understandably touchy about it. Words have to be chosen with care. That said … even those of us who used to display the bruises and still carry the scars from the fight against idiot racism and idiot racists must pause here.

Not only is the reverend’s assertion preposterous on its face, it’s also a blasphemy. I’m unsurprised—constantly and wearyingly unsurprised—that “clerics” who claim to know the mind of god are regularly and thoughtlessly blasphemous. To call the abortion rate among black American women “genocide” is to betray astonishing ignorance and to blaspheme against the memory of untold millions of innocent dead.

Did the Tutsis walk into their nearest Hutu branch office and say: “Hey, guys, would you please come and machete my entire family to death?” That’s a genocide. Did the Armenians all wake up one morning thinking: “You know, I’d like to go on a death march today. Maybe the Turks can arrange it.” That’s a genocide. Did some Jewess in Prague, over breakfast one day, think: “You know what would be good for little Benjamin? Let’s get Mr. Heydrich to put him on a cattle train to Poland, gas him to death, and then shove his twisted little body into an oven.” That’s a genocide.

But perhaps I’m wrong. It happens sometimes. Perhaps I’ve missed some major news story. Maybe squads of white American medics in lab coats with little insignia on their sleeves (have you noticed that racist dickwads just LOVE insignia? See the tattoos of the latest armed American dickwad on his Sikh kill-fest) are breaking down the doors of pregnant black Americans, dragging them to abortion clinics, strapping them to tables, and just going crazy with abortion madness.

Randy Newman’s “Rednecks” was painful-but-funny in its time, because the irony was so right and so searing. In the second decade of the twenty-first century, this black-abortion = genocide meme is just bollocks.

“While a precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

Jack, it is often argued that Black women have ‘no choice’ when it comes to choosing abortion because their economic situation forces them into abortion. If we accept that, and we accept Sanger’s and Planned Parenthood’s original arguments about sterilizing and aborting ‘lower races’, and the deliberate nature of PP and Sanger’s making abortion freely available to minorities on a disproportionately higher rate than whites, I’ll listen to the word ‘genocide’ in relation to this activity.

“Jack, it is often argued that Black women have ‘no choice’ when it comes to choosing abortion because their economic situation forces them into abortion. If we accept that ..”

Dear Cliverton,

We don’t accept that, which is going to make all that follows in your post pretty much moot.

We’re troubled by the phrase “it is often argued”. As an intellectual proposition, notions expressed in the passive voice tend to be dull. It’s a good rhetorical device, though. The interlocutor doesn’t know if he’s arguing with you or with the anonymous people who “often argue”.

My suggestion: let’s see what other BFP commenters have to say about this. My guess: I’ll get bashed as a pretentious bore/racist//whatever.

Before we can debate the need for any colour abortion perhaps we should take a look at how the need arose. Men and women who don’t use protection in 2012?? Women who have children from many fathers and are not ashamed of it??? Men boasting of how many children they have yet don’t live with any one woman???? If only a mature, positive attitude towards the results of casual sex could be brought home perhaps the issue of abortion would be such an issue.

Jack, Jack, Jack! There is a whole industry out there built on the premise that how blacks live and perform and socialize today is directly related to past injustices back to the slave trade. Everything from no property ownership to the lack of business culture is blamed on the past. Why not abortion too?

At the end of the day, when men run off from their reponsibilities saying ‘i wasn’t ready to be a dad’ are they judged as harshly -NO THEY’RE NOT. MEN have a lot of excuses in their mouth for not holding up their end, but at the end of the day, its just BREED AND RUN and before they get old they want to reappear to see what their child can do for them.

The catholic church has just exploded with child abuse by mostly Irish priests and Nuns and its been happening since world war 2 with hitler and his half Irish brother. Children were taken from British shores taken abroad especially Australia and sexually abused and told their parents were dead.

Child abuse and slavery go hand in hand in Britain and you can trace it back to Victorian times.

The whole abortion issue is about men controlling women just like in marriage – women were seen as property. In other words you own somebody and you can tell them what to do. The Irish are cultish and stuperstitious, thats why we have the Bushes, Blairs and Clintons of Irish decent hot on this topic, While in Ireland its illegal still to have abortions so they came to England in droves to have it done at the Mary Stopes Clinic where it doesn’t appear on their medical records and everything is confidential so their parents won’t find out either. Read ROWE V WADE. This was about the illegal abortions done in England for women abused in Marriage and in their owns homes by unscrupulous men who exploited women from the 19th century (white slavery) these abortions left mother and baby dead on the table from unsanitary conditions and untrained doctors.

This issue has run its course, the Irish bleat on about it because they want more children to abuse, also read ‘GODSQUAD’ on the internet and be shocked!!! all about the horrific child abuse that continues in Ireland. Its not just about Sinead O’connor on Oprah, its about the magdelene laundries, the industrial schools and the orphanages. Jerry Adams'(of the IRA) father was a prolific rapist and his brother abused his daughter from the age of three, now as a woman she came on TV to describe it all.

A woman has a right to determine what is good for her health and her own life and body FIRST. This issue has already been fought for and won and every woman should have access and a right to such a facility if needed, otherwise we will see like in very poor countries babies killed and left in the woods for the wolves to eat or in very poor destitute Victorian England where women had to give up their children if they couldn’t afford to keep them, or they were put to work in the poor house by the age of 5, infant mortatlity was very high (up the chimminey and down the coal mines)

Futhermore i don’t think we should listen to people who go around the world bombing and killing in WARS (all in the Queen’s name) telling us about ‘the right tpo life’ while they take the lives of those who already exist away!!!!

DO YOU SEE WHOSE CRAZY and horribly PEADOPHILE, so while you look at Godsquad and other related links to Hitler and the Catholic church and its role in slavery and child abuse around the world, just remember who really wants women to have unwanted babies. Not to mention stem cell research by these big pharmacutical companies who have not only experimented on animals in the past, given children bad medicine(thalidamide victims) and bad advice!!!!

Try to do some research before commenting, it really helps to push a debate in the right direction. JOIN THE DOTS (make sense)

Jack Bowman’s comment is known as “Flaming” in the blog world. Might I suggest that you discourage people from insulting others? Mr. Bowman is showing total disrespect. If I chose the user name I did and you, the Moderator has an issue with it no problem but otherwise may I humbly suggest that people be more respectful and less self-rightous.

They are caucasian and other people of other ethnicities that have very little regard for black people. And you know what I have very little regard for any of them. They are the ones who are ugly and hideous.

The reference to the Genocide Convention is inappropriate. The Convention was clearly not intended to strike at abortions. There are other legal arguments which might serve – eg the ‘right to life’ and similar concepts in the context of human rights – but NOT genocide.

I see nothing disrespectful in Jack Bowman’s comments.

Victor is, as always, thoughtful and insightful; as also Bajan.

To quote the latter: “This issue has run its course.”

But for the record – all babies are beautiful and are a divine gift; and, for me, black babies are particularly beautiful.

I do not see the evidence for women resorting to abortion on economic grounds – inconvenience grounds yes – but not economic ones of the kind ‘we’ll starve otherwise’. Certainly the economic arguments do not apply in Barbados where the abortion percentage is very low indeed. The practice among women of the lower socio-economic class is to have the baby, though there are all sorts of reasons for this and not inevitably honourable ones…..which might just be something BFP would wish to explore.

If you live in a society with strong family support groups and where fatherless children (or should I say dead beat Dad’s) are just one of those things, there will be grandmothers and aunties who perhaps themselves have had to bring up kids without a father figure, abortion will be low and indeed, frowned upon, as is adoption, because the first option will always be keep the baby, manage somehow with the family support network.

If on the other hand you are in a society such as I described above with an obsession about male children being preferred and women are not as strong as they are in Barbados, there will be abortions, deaths of female newborns etc. Going into a sophisticated, Western society where single mothers struggle without the support network found in places like Barbados, there will be abortion, morning after pill. Now we see this new phenomenon in the West where young men insist why should they wear a condom? She can get the morning after pill so again putting the onus on the woman!

Again, adoption in the West is difficult and traumatic. In West African societies, children are swapped around between relatives as the norm so unless parents and relatives are all dead (sadly often the case these days because of AIDS) that baby will be taken in by relatives, no problem. Adoption of a stranger’s child is not something that happens a lot in West Africa. Unless you get Madonna or Angelina turning up or nuns, foreign charity orphanages etc. In the UK there is a large proportion of black children in the care system, from newborns up. Plenty of white childless couples want to adopt, (though few black couples step forward) regardless of colour but social services would rather have a poor kid spend its life in an orphanage rather than let a white couple adopt it. These care homes are a nightmare although some have had good experiences being brought up there. But generally, most of the children grow up to be low achievers and are often subject to abuse as we all know from the scandalous newspaper headlines.

My view is that anybody who discriminates against a baby whether it be colour or sex, should be struck of the medical register. Secondly, anybody who is deemed a stable and suitable couple regardless of matching colour, should be welcomed to adopt a child from an orphanage. I do accept that a person should be allowed to have an abortion but if there was a better system for adoption, I bet many of those thinking about abortion would feel more comfortable about offering up the child to another set of parents who would dearly welcome it.

OK, we both gave it a couple of days and not one of BFP’s commenters has decided to jump in with a blistering rebuttal that devastates your position or mine. Not even Mr. Bourne made an appearance. Perhaps I was being unduly optimistic.

Clive, I want to say all that follows with all due respect. I’ve read your blog for several years and I think it’s mostly outstanding. You write well. You express your thoughts cogently and you make very articulate sense most of the time.

That said …

I maintain: nobody has some grand design to exterminate black fetuses in the United States.

I argue: anyone who even tries to maintain that there is some grand design to exterminate black fetuses in the United States is an idiot.

I speculate: people who argue that there is some grand design to exterminate black fetuses in the United States are idiots. I mean real idiots, not just people with some wishy-washy ideological agenda that they’re ill-equipped to think through, but real and actual idiots who don’t read enough. Not books, anyway.

And you’re right, of course. We’re just talking; no harm in that. Could be a lot of good in that, if people did it more.

I don’t know if Sanger was a eugenicist. I honestly don’t know. I’ve never looked into the matter. Clearly, you have. And since BFP has normally shown itself to be a trustworthy source, I’ll take your word for it. I will, as you say, acknowledge it. You seem to know vastly more about that than I do.

I also don’t know “when Planned Parenthood dropped the anti-negro agenda”. I have no idea. This is another area in which your knowledge seems to outstrip mine. I have enough intellectual self-confidence that I will always concede to greater knowledge, and will be grateful for it.

But … because there always has to be a “but”, else none of us will ever really learn …

You’re besmirching an entire organization here, in August 2012. You’re accusing it and all the people who work for it of unspeakable crimes. You’re suggesting, without ever actually saying it, that this organization is engaged in some form of racial warfare against babies, in August 2012.

That’s a pretty big charge to make, Robert, and thus far you haven’t even begun to make a case for it.

Let’s assume that Sanger was a eugenicist. Let’s assume that Planned Parenthood once had an “anti-negro agenda in mind when they started.”

What does that take away from PP now, in August 2012? Can you guess how many pap smears they’ve done? Can you imagine how many women they’ve saved from cervical cancer, saved from ovarian cancer, saved from the kind of deaths that you don’t even want to have to think about?

Perhaps it’s OK if you notice a little blood in your urine one day and you live in some gated community on Sugar Hill, or in Knightsbridge, or in mid-town Manhattan. You pay and you get cured. End of problem. Perhaps it’s less OK if you live in south-east Washington DC, or the south side of Chicago, or Brixton, or Luanda. Perhaps you can’t pay. Perhaps you’ll die, unless some medics have decided to forego the millions they could make on Sugar Hill and in Knightsbridge and mid-town Manhattan.

I do not speak for Planned Parenthood. I have only the tiniest connection to the institution … when I was in Luanda and Darfur and Port-au-Prince and Managua and all the tragic points in between, I met some people who did work for PP and who were working 20 hours a day in a heart-breaking effort to stop black and hispanic and white people from dying.

As someone said in a post above, you can have some religious or ethical or even philosophical position against abortion. That’s a good stand to take. That can be argued. I don’t share the position, mostly because I think that people who believe in an invisible guy in the sky should be taken as seriously as people who believe in astrology or Zeus or the weird voice in their hair-dryer telling them to eat more yams or go out and shoot random people.

But it’s a position I’ll take seriously, even if I don’t agree with it and even if I believe it is ill thought-out.

Smearing an entire institution, though, Robert, accusing it of crimes against humanity, that’s something you’re going to have to work at a lot harder if you want to convince the non-idiots.

Ah, man … I really don’t want to have a fight about abortion. People on both sides go insane whenever they engage in this battle. Nobody is reasonable or rational. It’s depressing.

Just to say it: as a general proposition I’m against abortion … I think its occurrence should be minimized … I’ve done all the thinking that my little brain can possibly do about it, and I still come down on the side of the sanctity of life. I am beholden to certain oaths taken when my brain was younger and possibly more sprightly. First, do no harm …

There, I said that. Now, because we have to, let’s make a tired effort …

Observer interjects: “Nobody wants to talk about fetal pain when the baby in the womb is being ripped apart alive.”

Just as a matter of demonstrable fact, that’s incorrect. Unless you’ve been living on Mars with a bad cable connection for the past 40 years, it’s inescapable that very large numbers of people want to talk about fetuses in pain and they want to do so (as you do) in language that is highly emotive, inflammatory, and not at all helpful in the framing of legislation.

That’s important, because every legal jurisdiction that isn’t peopled exclusively by barbarians needs legislation on this matter. There are only two alternatives to some form of regulating legislation. One is to enact a one-time law that bans abortion in all circumstances. That necessarily means that in some circumstances you will decree that a woman and a baby should die. The other alternative is to have no legislation, in which case it would be legal to abort a fetus one day before it reaches the end of natural gestation.

Which of these, Observer, do you prefer?

Moreover, if you can demonstrate that a central nervous system capable of perceiving pain has developed in, say, a month-old embryo, then you should publish the findings of your research and simply sit back to await the inevitable Nobel Prize in Medicine that is doubtless due to you.

The ethical questions that arise in this matter are mind-bending, but the questions have to be posed and they have to be addressed. There will be cases —I guarantee you that there will be plenty of cases—when a young woman has been raped by a psycho and impregnated; and the youngster has a uterine deformity that ensures she will die and the fetus will die if the pregnancy is carried to term. You’re going to let them die, are you? Who appointed you god? Who?

There’s a massive ethical question here. Once you concede the legality (that’s to say, the consensus-accepted morality) of abortion in some circumstances, then where do you draw the line on the ethics of other circumstances? And if you don’t concede that, and therefore your position is that there should be no abortion ever, under any circumstances, then perhaps you’d be better off in some cave in Afghanistan with a couple of black-and-white TVs and some tin-foil on your head, planning how to bring the Great Satan to its knees and amassing stocks of battery acid to throw into the faces of girls who have the temerity to want an education.

See? People go insane in this particular tussle.

Hey, Robert, I’m making an effort here. Feel free to jump in whenever you want.

yawn. Just be honest christians….
1. This article and its sources come to us courtesy of christianity.
2. You nutjobs want to control what women can do with their bodies
3. You have never and will never adopt any of the children that are homeless and without parents for what ever reason
4. Lying and deception is all right as long as it is for baby jesus (so are scare tactics and phony quotes and all the usual tatics used by you nutjobs because you are not honest enough to admit where your opinion comes from)
5. You certainly dont have an issue with suffering adult human life, as long as you can get maids, gardeners and people to pump gas as minumim wage so you can live your fairytale middleclass lives. (a bit longwinded but try to get what i saying.. too impatient to explain… if you still dont get 5 maybe a little prayer would help…yea.)
6. finally, its always laughable when christian nutjobs try to use “science” to prove their points.. all of a sudden science can illustrate the suffering of the foetus… well humanity can recognise the suffering of homeless adults or adults on minimum wage… yes those that you ignore everyday because you too concerned with baby jesus and the poor babies and other peoples (women) body.

I fully agree with Jack Bowman on this issue who has eloquently stated the case for a woman ‘s right to choose in the end, whatever colour or sex the fetus may be and however horrible that choice may be to the rest of us.

A human life does not begin at conception but rather upon a babies first breath.

Do the reseach on this topic – I was waiting for the word EUGENICS to pop up before i commented. EUGENICS was designed by a man called GRANT, initially from SCOTLAND who immigrated to AMERICA in the 16th??? 17th??? century. His grand and dimwitted plan was to purge and cleanse the WHITE race of it’s, feebleminded, weak and worthless bloodlines coming out of EUROPE, TO AMERICA, am thanking GOD that this idiot GRANT had no bloodline to pass on his psychotic illness, he has no descendants, eventually eugenics extended to other races. Remember EUGENICS and RACISM are two different EVILS, EUGENICS IS A FORM OF ETHNIC CLEANSING. In saying that, DR. VERMIN would need to practice EUGENICS on the white race who are currently the ones going postal and killing loads of innocent people from COLORADO right across all 50 states, not black babies or young black men. In GRANT’S day Dr. Vermin would be a candidate for extinction, he would be considered a blight in America being a descendant of the Indian sub-continent, ironic is it not? However, he must be the only idiot now with a plan to kill black babies, if true. America in it’s darkest days of evil confessed to sterilizing thousands of blacks as recently as the seventies. I remember in Barbados there was a doctor in bank hall who performed thousands of abortions on the majority black babies, he died an agonizingly horrible death at the QEH hospital, all the money he made was worthless for that event, hope DR. Vermin takes notes. In saying that, there are now 7 billion people on earth, maybe 3 million of them are extremely and obscenely wealthy, the majority are poor and scratch for a living, I think a woman has the right to decide if she is mentally, physically or financially able to deal with a birth given that most men could care less. The catholic church, hypocritical to the end always there to instigate a birth but never there for all the social problems that accompany these births and will not take their holy trillions of dollars to alleviate poverty that is created as a direct result of all these unwanted births. Touching on the female gender killings, am sure most of you have heard that idiot plan has now come back to bite China in the ass, more males than females, big fallout. All of these atrocities take place when man think they have the right to play GOD. If Dr. VERMIN don’t keep his big mouth shut, the anti-abortionist will make sure he don’t get to see another ugly baby of any race, IDIOT.

I honestly think that it is senseless to give voice, time, space, and energy to this article. All it does is provokes the emotional part of our nature, which seeks to lash-out with hatred, bitterness, and retaliation.

Mark, alot of people, particulary in the Caribbean and Africa are not aware of the double standards, hypocrisy and concentrated evil posing as leadership, some have to be educated, as repugnant as the education sounds. This evil must be diluted.

@Well Well
I would probably agree with you on the point that some people in the Caribbean are not consciously aware of the hypocrisy and concentrated evil masquerading as leadership. But I can’t agree with you on the point, that the people on the African continent are not acutely aware of this ever present evil, unveiling itself as evil. Obviously, one has to taking into consideration the history of Africa’s dictatorial governments. Which has been in existence from the post-colonial period to the present, and its continual tribal-fragmentation that is been incited by its leadership?

The African tribal leaders till this day really don’t care what happens to us in the west. You know most of them care very little about what happens to their own people in Africa, all very self-serving.

@ well well
I try not to use an absolute when I’m writing or speaking about any giving issue, until I ascertain conclusive evidence to support my argument. Because when I assume an absolute on any giving issue, it does a disservice to those who aren’t party to such action.
to often when we speak about Africa, we have a tendency to attribute blame unilaterally to the whole of Africa, and not the specific nation in question. Africa is a continent much like: Europe, Asia, Australia, Antarctica, and North and South America, and should be treated as such.
But when we speak of Europe for example, we speak in terms of individual nations within Europe, and not the continent per se. While on the other hand, when we speak of Africa we have a propensity to do so collectively.

@well well
Now, Africa has made some attempts in it’s efforts to abandon it’s chauvinistic past, by electing two female heads of state, Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and Malawian President Joyce Banda. And these two women are doing their best to improve the lives of they people, and therefore must be commended for their tireless endeavours.

@Well Well
Whether women are the solution to Africa’s problems is obviously left to be determine, and irrespective of how dismal the situation may seem in Africa. I nonetheless, have high hopes that one day Africa will find its rightful place, as a continent that is capable of meeting all the needs of its people. On a sad note, I’ve read quite recently,that two of my childhood African heroes had died. Joshua Nkomo and Bishop Abel Muzorewa, true liberators of the African cause.

Along with my praises for Africa, also accompany my constructive criticism of some its despot leaders. Now, I’m not naive to the fact that Africa continues to grapples with the serious problem of political leadership. Because we still have a group of men who continues to nourished the ancestral idea of dictatorial power. And this power seeks to aggrandize the pockets of their family, friends, clan ,and ethnic -group, at the expense of the social, political, and economic marginalized masses of the African people.

It is certainly worthwhile having a dialectical discussion here. Which examines the possible causes and factors that have given rise to the psychological frame of reference of the African leader. Critics have argued though, that greed seems to the common denominator that perpetuates the attitude of the post-colonial, as well as the contemporary African leader.